Author
Topic: Irrefutable proof that a god exists (Read 13618 times)

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

An existing god exists.

An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

SIGH. Once again..most of us were Christians who WASTED a few decades, hundreds if put together in the silly religion. We came to the position of agnostic atheism, atheism or whatever else through THINKING rationally.

Quote

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

What the bullocks? This just doesn't make sense. It's like saying this:

If we can all agree that if a 600 mile wide asteroid that's on its path towards Earth exists, then it exists.OrIf we can all agree that IF Cthulhu actually exists, then it exists. Do you see the flaw yet?

Quote

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

What Zankuu said.

Quote

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists".

...No, the god doesn't exist. Therefore you're TRYING to prove that it exists, making it not an already existing entity except in the minds of men.

Quote

Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

There are moments when I want to repeatedly smash my head against concrete out of sheer embarrassment for others. This is one of them.

Quote

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

...Your whole argument's premise is based on the thinking that if we say "if" for Object A, then Object A automatically exists. As Aretha Franklin would say: THINK!

Quote

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

I couldn't help but hear Mojo Jojo's voice when I read that.

Quote

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

An existing god exists.

An existing god does not exist.

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

Perhaps I missed something, but why phrase it as "an existing god"? Why not just "if god exists..."?

Either God is supernatural and omnipotent, or it is not the case that God is supernatural and omnipotent.

is true by virtue of its form alone. That is, the "middle" position, that God is neither supernatural and omnipotent nor not-supernatural and not-omnipotent, is excluded by logic, and therefore either the first possibility (God is supernatural and omnipotent) or its negation (it is not the case that God is supernatural and omnipotent) must be true.

===

Personally, I'd conclude that god is not supernatural and is not omnipotent.

Based on your form it's pretty lame for anyone to say that something that exists doesn't exist, so we must agree with your first preposition that god exists. For some reason it seems like your logic is flawed simply because you use the word "existing" before you even mention the idea of god. There is no choice but to agree with you on this point because everyone knows that something that exists can't not exist. We just have to take you on your word that you know that god exists.

I have four cats.I don't have four cats.

Question: How many cats do I have? Four or none? Honestly it's neither because I have two, but based on your example of the cats I either have four or not four.

I actually came to this topic expecting an argument that's hard to refute. I probably should know better by now: If a thread is entitled "Irrefutable proof for a god" or something similar to it, it's gonna be a big letdown.

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do.

Logged

Most people think they know what they know. The problem starts by not knowing what you don't know. You know? (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) (Albert Einstein)One fool can ask more questions in a minute than twelve wise men can answer in an hour. --Nikolai Lenin

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

Hmm, that if says a lot. I think many who will and have post(ed) in this thread will not agree with you that a god exists, so your logic falls flat right off the bat. Many of us could step into our frame of mind that we had when we were christians and shout "Yeah, way to go Peter! Show those atheists using logic that god exists!" but you're speaking to people who just don't agree with you that a god exists, and we all know that if something exists then it does exist. Whether we want it too or not[1], if it exists, then well.... it exists. Case closed. Nothing we can do about it unless we buy or create a proton pack.

You logic will be well accepted in your circle of friends or acquaintances who all share the same belief as you do, but here where many of us don't believe your god is real, it just wont be accepted. And (since I cannot edit my previous post, which is why I am making a new post), you don't really have any right to think or speak for us[2]. Your...

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

logic fails because you're creating the fallacy of (might not be a fallacy - Perhaps just being rude) of speaking for us, thinking that we will agree that if it exists, then it does. And, well... many of us just don't think it does exist. There is no IF. So you've proven nothing.

And sorry for making a new post but one thing I absolutely hate is when people feel the need to speak for others. Some people should just shut the fuck up and let those who are capable of speaking for themselves do so.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2011, 07:22:17 AM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

You stated a premise that I, nor most on this forum accept. You said existing in your opening statement. There isn't an existing god to begin with. It is a circular argument. Like everyone else has been saying, you can insert any other silly term in there and it still doesn't make it valid if the person doesn't accept your premise.

You first have to prove the existing god part before you can say existing god, unless of course you meant Odin. Oh never mind, go ahead. I thought you were trying to prove the Jesus god thingy. You were just proving Odin. Continue on soldier.

OK, even I was (W.T.F.) on this one. At first I thought it was a joke. I am starting to see why you guys look at us the way you do.

Once you realize that most arguments for the existence of God are this weak (or worse!) then you will really understand us.

I hope you realize that we don't "look at (you) the way (we) do" out of scorn, or hate, or prejudice. It's mostly pity. And a little bit of a laugh too. Don't you honestly feel sorry for someone who is able to convince themselves of ANYTHING based on the type of "logic" displayed here? Again, that's how we feel when we read almost any post by a theist. In my experience here so far, from what I have read in theists posts, the only one I have noticed who is intellectually honest and provokes serious, insightful thought is OldChurchGuy. Being able to simply admit to what one doesn't know, and that one doesn't know how to find the answer, is infinitely more honest and respectful than saying "I KNOW God exists! But I don't have any meaningful way of demonstrating that, or replicating it in others, or any evidence to support it, or any evidence to counter all of the contradictions, lies, errors, and cruelties in the Bible. Still, I KNOW!". Neither convincing nor honest. Being able to discern the difference between faith and knowledge, and being able to admit to the existence of such a difference, is admirable.

However, what peterofthecorn did here should cause him to be extremely embarrassed, if he has any personal integrity. Either that or it is meant to be a troll post. It's really hard to believe someone could actually use logic that badly and be sincere about it, especially when OTHER BELIEVERS can see that it's BS.

You know what peterofthecorn? I am friends with my former Logic/Critical Thinking professor on Facebook. How about I email him your post, or invite him here, to address the quality of your logic? I'm sure it would be enlightening. He may decline because, based upon the frivolity of your assertions, it would probably be a complete waste of his time, but I suppose that itself would be indicative of the value of your "logic".

I know this will be hard for all of you to believe, after all, many of you have wasted years thinking otherwise, but try to overlook your emotional attachments and consider this rationally.

Let me turn that question around. Can you overlook your emotional attachment to the idea of God and consider rationally the concept of their being no God at all? If you cannot, it is nonsense to expect someone else to do what you cannot.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

I think we can all agree that if an existing god exists, then a god exists. (And by "an existing god", I mean, "a god that exists"). So, to prove that a god exists, I merely need to prove that an existing god exists, which is simple enough.

First off, this statement is a logical fallacy. "If something exists, then it exists." You're restating the premise as its conclusion, the most basic form of circular logic. Second, you can't prove something exists through pure logic, because that is a thought exercise. I can conceive of things existing in my mind, but without actually finding those things in the real world, they remain totally imaginary.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle). For example, given the proposition, "John owns four cats", we can conclude that John either has four cats, or does not have four cats. Simple enough.

However, you cannot determine whether John actually has four cats or not unless you go and count them. You can neither prove nor disprove a logical contention without observation of whatever is being contended about.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

Anyway, back to existence of a god. The proposition I am trying to prove is "an existing god exists". Given this proposition, from the law of excluded middle we can conclude that exactly one of these two possibilities has to be true.

You can't prove that something exists just by saying that it exists. It is no more complicated than that.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

An existing god exists.

An existing god does not exist.

Both of these are logical fallacies as currently stated. You are basically saying, "either a god that exists exists, or a god that exists doesn't exist". You have carefully set up your logical contention to disallow for the possibility that you might be wrong, and thus have sabotaged your own effort. Very simply, you cannot determine whether something really exists just by using logic.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

Look carefully at the second possibility: it's a contradiction in terms! Clearly, it is not logically possible for something to be existing and to not exist at the same time. Hence, we can clearly eliminate this possibility. Since we established that exactly one of these possibilities is true, and that that second cannot be true, we must conclude, however improbable it may seem, that the first is true.

Nope, and there are two problems. First is the circular logic; as others have said, if you rephrase the premise slightly (to "a god that doesn't exist"), then you end up with the exact same situation, but where you've 'proven' the opposite. Second, if you take away the circular logic, you end up with the statement "either a god exists or it doesn't exist". As I showed above, you can't prove whether it exists or doesn't exist simply by using logic.

Quote from: peterofthecorn

So, we've established that "an existing god exists", and we've already established that that implies "a god exists." So there you have it, a logically irrefutable proof that a god exists!

For something to be logically irrefutable, there must be evidence of it actually existing. For example, this very post is logically irrefutable evidence that a poster named jaimehlers exists - that someone goes by the handle of 'jaimehlers' and writes posts on this forum. So you have to find evidence that a god exists before you can say that its existence is logically irrefutable.

I think we can also all agree that for any proposition P, either P or not P must be true (this is a basic logical tenet called the law of excluded middle.

This is untrue. There exists statements that are neither true nor false. Typically they have poorly defined terms involved and include self reference. Paradoxes are a family of these.

This sentence is false.

The hangman;s paradox is more subtle.

Logged

"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Because for a thing to exist it is an existing thing. If the question is if an existing thing exists if is the fallacy of the Excluded Middle that the null hypothesis that an existing thing does not exist is a reductio ad absurdum.